What are the odds the that 1 covid positive boar of 10,000 with balls got into Foolihan's beef burrito? All of him. Not mixed with any castrated boars?
That is surely an important question.
For all my earlier talk of "presumed intent", which no one has provided any factual basis for, the most important question was whether the AAF was proper to begin with.
To recap the process, here is how it is supposed to work: Positive test -> AAF -> ADRV -> athlete acceptance or contesting with explanation -> default 4 year sanction adjusted to between 0-life, depending on factors.
The first question, and most important one before the CAS (see Ross Tucker), is whether the AAF was correctly reported, or whether there was a deviation in the procedure which caused the AAF reporting.
Here, I disagreed with the majority of the CAS, and agreed with the dissenting minority of the CAS. By my reading, there was a clear deviation by the WADA Lab. The TD2021NA makes clear that, in intact boar consumption cases, "The (exogenous) origin of the urinary 19-NA may not be established by GC/C/IRMS analysis". And yet it was used to establish the exogenous origin, and justify the AAF reporting. The applicable standard in the TD2021NA guidance for the WADA Lab at this early stage before the AAF is reported, is not the "balance of probability", but "invoked by the athlete". I agree with the CAS that "It is not for the Laboratory to finally decide on the origin/cause of the analytical finding".
The CAS Panel was split and of two minds on this important question of whether the TD was followed. The TD should not be ambiguous on how to report unambiguous test results. Perhaps WADA should have been invited to intervene to clarify this point.
Again, by my reading, what should have happened, according to the TD2021NA, after athlete invocation, is reporting the B-sample as an ATF and reporting the GC/C/IRMS result as inconclusive noting "athlete invocation of consumption of intact boar" in the report. At this early stage, there is no higher athlete burden on the balance of probability to establish boar consumption before the AAF has been properly determined. Without "exogenous origin" being properly established, there would be no AAF, and no charge of an ADRV, and no requirement to prove the source or establish non-intent on the balance of probability, and no case to answer, and no CAS to finally decide. The next step would be increased targeted testing by the ADOs to collect more conclusive data.
Even more confusing is the CAS argument that "it cannot depend on the timing of when an athlete claims the ingestion of boar meat to determine what steps need to be undertaken by the laboratory". This interpretation would render the lab guidance to the WADA Lab of "invoked by athlete" entirely meaningless, as the only time that athlete invocation of pork consumption could apply to the WADA Lab is before the lab reports the results. Sure, the athlete can also invoke it later, before the WA/AIU, and before the CAS, but then the TD2021NA guidance to the WADA Lab no longer applies.
What actually happened is a kind of circular "ends justifies the means" argument, by applying the higher burden on the athlete to establish the source before the AAF was determined, which would have led to the ADRV, which would have only then properly placed the higher burden on the athlete to establish the source. Since the athlete couldn't establish what the CAS reported "is difficult to provide", this was used to justify the use of the GC/C/IRMS result, which was used to justify the AAF, which which was used to justify the ADRV, which would only then trigger the higher athlete burden to establish the source to establish non-intent. But that higher athlete burden is premature, until the AAF is properly reported, and the ADRV properly charged.
Hooray for the sport.
She and her Million Dollar Lawyer chose to skip the steps. Went right to the CAS.
And you claim to have followed the sport for decades. Hahahahaha
There was an online writer who was directing a lot of vitriol toward Shelby and a number of other people in the sport, in a very aggressive way…similar to Armstronglivs. Engaging in constant personal attacks and name calling. May have absolutely no relation to the poster, since there seems to be more than one person out there who wants to keep acting like they know everything about Shelby and how CAS was supposedly 100% right to ban her.
People who spend their life talking about how much others suck need to seek help.
And you claim to have followed the sport for decades. Hahahahaha
There was an online writer who was directing a lot of vitriol toward Shelby and a number of other people in the sport, in a very aggressive way…similar to Armstronglivs. Engaging in constant personal attacks and name calling. May have absolutely no relation to the poster, since there seems to be more than one person out there who wants to keep acting like they know everything about Shelby and how CAS was supposedly 100% right to ban her.
People who spend their life talking about how much others suck need to seek help.
I’m sure Shelby is Sweet, that doesn't give her half-baked story any more likelihood of truth. Lots of dopers were nice people. I’m not saying she sucks, just her story sucks and it sucks that she doped.
There was an online writer who was directing a lot of vitriol toward Shelby and a number of other people in the sport, in a very aggressive way…similar to Armstronglivs. Engaging in constant personal attacks and name calling. May have absolutely no relation to the poster, since there seems to be more than one person out there who wants to keep acting like they know everything about Shelby and how CAS was supposedly 100% right to ban her.
People who spend their life talking about how much others suck need to seek help.
I’m sure Shelby is Sweet, that doesn't give her half-baked story any more likelihood of truth. Lots of dopers were nice people. I’m not saying she sucks, just her story sucks and it sucks that she doped.
100% she’s so guilty and it’s was provable. She needs to go away. She makes the sport a joke
On the flip side, how does not knowing someone make you know their darkest secrets? You cannot make a very solid argument based on what you don't know. This is exactly what happened with Shelby.
If female athletes really wanted to orally microdose nandrolone (hypothetically assuming this athlete exists), they should take birth control with norethisterone. There is no path to GC/C/IRMS or AAF.
rekrunner, your, "I know you are but what am I ?" shtick is certainly tiring, but it only helps the the ridiculous Foolihan story by maybe 0.00001%. There is statistically zero chance of the perfect storm of all those little itsy bitsy scenarios. Let it go. Free your soul of this burden. Your can't help her. She can return to competition now , hopefully clean, and try to BrEaK aLL oF tHe rEcoRDs.
I'm sure it must be tiring to have this double standard constantly exposed. It's equally tiring for me to read all these arguments and conclusions from those who really don't know anything about the source or her intentions.
There is also "statistically zero chance" of being struck by lightning, yet it happens all the time.
When 130,000,000 pigs are slaughtered in the US per year, there are a lot of opportunities for a statiscally unlikely event to occur.
We did see a great deal of evidence that unique conditions during the pandemic greatly increased the chances of older pigs eating soy.
In the alternative, if Houlihan never purchased any banned nandrolone or nor-steroid precursor, that statistical chance is exacly zero. Much was made of the receipt for the beef burrito, yet the double standard is that there was no Amazon receipt for pseudo-endogenous nandrolone.
She and her Million Dollar Lawyer chose to skip the steps. Went right to the CAS.
This was one of several ways that Houlihan was screwed by a process which heavily tips the balance of justice against the accused athlete. The AIU dragged their feet, essentially robbing Houlihan of her only chance of appeal, although there is no guarantee that she would not have been railroaded by both WA/AIU and the CAS.
The AIU received Houlihan's explanation on 11 March, and did not respond to that, or a request for a Provisional Hearing on 12 April, until 12 May. "the AIU’s failure to issue a timely decision on the Provisional Hearing Request amounted to a denial of justice".
In any case, this does not provide any explanation for why the GC/C/IRMS was used to determine the exogenous origin, in order to report an AAF, when the guideline is that it may not be used.
Recall at this early stage, before the WADA Lab reports the result, the burden is not on the athlete, but on the anti-doping organization to establish the ADRV, with a burden greater than a mere balance of probability. Before the WADA Lab reporting, the only burden on the athlete is to "invoke pork". Here is the applicable standard of proof: "The standard of proof shall be whether the anti-doping organization has established an anti-doping rule violation to the comfortable satisfaction of the hearing panel". "This standard of proof in all cases is greater than a mere balance of probability but less than proof beyond a reasonable doubt."
rekrunner, your, "I know you are but what am I ?" shtick is certainly tiring, but it only helps the the ridiculous Foolihan story by maybe 0.00001%. There is statistically zero chance of the perfect storm of all those little itsy bitsy scenarios. Let it go. Free your soul of this burden. Your can't help her. She can return to competition now , hopefully clean, and try to BrEaK aLL oF tHe rEcoRDs.
I'm sure it must be tiring to have this double standard constantly exposed. It's equally tiring for me to read all these arguments and conclusions from those who really don't know anything about the source or her intentions.
There is also "statistically zero chance" of being struck by lightning, yet it happens all the time.
When 130,000,000 pigs are slaughtered in the US per year, there are a lot of opportunities for a statiscally unlikely event to occur.
We did see a great deal of evidence that unique conditions during the pandemic greatly increased the chances of older pigs eating soy.
In the alternative, if Houlihan never purchased any banned nandrolone or nor-steroid precursor, that statistical chance is exacly zero. Much was made of the receipt for the beef burrito, yet the double standard is that there was no Amazon receipt for pseudo-endogenous nandrolone.
The chance of being struck by lightning is statistically one in a million. the chance of being struck by lightning while in a basement, eating popcorn, with sea salt, in a wooden bowl, watching a curling tournament, with your brother's girlfriend, at 10:00 p.m., when the tv guide said it was a short track speed skating event... is statistically zero.
No real need for a Nandrolone receipt, as it's in her body. Her intent everyday of her life is to ruin faster. Certainly at this stage in her life and career she knows eating whole greasy burritos is detrimental to that intent.
The chance of being struck by lightning is statistically one in a million. the chance of being struck by lightning while in a basement, eating popcorn, with sea salt, in a wooden bowl, watching a curling tournament, with your brother's girlfriend, at 10:00 p.m., when the tv guide said it was a short track speed skating event... is statistically zero.
No real need for a Nandrolone receipt, as it's in her body. Her intent everyday of her life is to ruin faster. Certainly at this stage in her life and career she knows eating whole greasy burritos is detrimental to that intent.
When you put it that way, the chance of anything becomes statistically zero, including purchasing and ingesting a nor-steroid precursor from Amazon.
To avoid the double-standard, you need to apply the same statistical approach to all options, and then normalize the results, while quantifyting the uncertainties.
Another flaw in the "presupposed cascade of factors" statistical argument is that Houlihan, and the associated pork burrito, were not chosen at random. Houlihan was selected on the basis of her positive test result.
The question that was not answered by the CAS proceeding was: what was the source of the nandrolone? Houlihan was unable to establish the source, and no one established the likelihood of any alternative source.
Four years later and you're still blaming the burrito. FFS, move on.
I'm faulting a process that cannot determine that she intentionally doped, without first presuming she intentionally doped.
That's exactly what it determined. CAS found she intentionally doped - because it found nothing and no one else caused her to ingest a banned drug (and it had to be ingested to pass through her kidneys into her urine. If it wasn't ingested she couldn't have argued contamination through eating a burrito). You are the complete moron.
She and her Million Dollar Lawyer chose to skip the steps. Went right to the CAS.
This was one of several ways that Houlihan was screwed by a process which heavily tips the balance of justice against the accused athlete. The AIU dragged their feet, essentially robbing Houlihan of her only chance of appeal, although there is no guarantee that she would not have been railroaded by both WA/AIU and the CAS.
The AIU received Houlihan's explanation on 11 March, and did not respond to that, or a request for a Provisional Hearing on 12 April, until 12 May. "the AIU’s failure to issue a timely decision on the Provisional Hearing Request amounted to a denial of justice".
In any case, this does not provide any explanation for why the GC/C/IRMS was used to determine the exogenous origin, in order to report an AAF, when the guideline is that it may not be used.
Recall at this early stage, before the WADA Lab reports the result, the burden is not on the athlete, but on the anti-doping organization to establish the ADRV, with a burden greater than a mere balance of probability. Before the WADA Lab reporting, the only burden on the athlete is to "invoke pork". Here is the applicable standard of proof: "The standard of proof shall be whether the anti-doping organization has established an anti-doping rule violation to the comfortable satisfaction of the hearing panel". "This standard of proof in all cases is greater than a mere balance of probability but less than proof beyond a reasonable doubt."
The banned drug found in her urine sample had to be ingested. She acknowledged that when she argued accidental contamination by eating a burrito. The likelihood of such contamination was determined by CAS as a "cascading series of improbabilities". Her story didn't cut it. Since her defence was rejected on the balance of probabilities that meant she had to have deliberately ingested the drug - no other explanation was available - which she thus could only have done INTENTIONALLY. Your obfuscation, lying and stupidity is of Olympic proportions. But we can all be satisfied that you and she have lost the argument where it counts; before the Court and she has lost the respect of the sport as an adjudicated cheat - which is what an intentional doper is.
And you claim to have followed the sport for decades. Hahahahaha
There was an online writer who was directing a lot of vitriol toward Shelby and a number of other people in the sport, in a very aggressive way…similar to Armstronglivs. Engaging in constant personal attacks and name calling. May have absolutely no relation to the poster, since there seems to be more than one person out there who wants to keep acting like they know everything about Shelby and how CAS was supposedly 100% right to ban her.
People who spend their life talking about how much others suck need to seek help.
This sport, which I once followed passionately, has been corrupted by doping. I have no respect for those who are caught doping and with whom it has been proven - as Houlihan has been - and even less for the practised liars and deniers who defend them.
100% innocent! Look, everyone cool knows that feral male razorbacks got heavily into the trend of injecting synthetic nandrolone directly into their testicles during the pandemic. Crazy adolescent hogs! It was a huge craze because they were bored during lockdown and many posted TikTok videos of themselves “Poking Something Offal”.
Well, some of these offal pokers got killed and then sold to the illegal underground food truck meat trade. Some of these swine balls were so big that they were sold as flank steaks and chuck roasts to unsuspecting taco truck owners. In a sad twist of fate, some enthusiasts of authentic Mexican cucina fare got burritos stuffed with juicy javelina jewels instead of their usual skirt steak.
An innocent mistake! Could have happened to anyone! If you are an elite runner, best stick to bland but safe corporate fare like Chipotle or Baja Fresh because the dope police are on Reels and don’t know what’s up.
I'm faulting a process that cannot determine that she intentionally doped, without first presuming she intentionally doped.
That's exactly what it determined. CAS found she intentionally doped - because it found nothing and no one else caused her to ingest a banned drug (and it had to be ingested to pass through her kidneys into her urine. If it wasn't ingested she couldn't have argued contamination through eating a burrito).
Agreed. Using a faulty process, they determined something only because they first presumed it.
The banned drug found in her urine sample had to be ingested. She acknowledged that when she argued accidental contamination by eating a burrito. The likelihood of such contamination was determined by CAS as a "cascading series of improbabilities". Her story didn't cut it. Since her defence was rejected on the balance of probabilities that meant she had to have deliberately ingested the drug - no other explanation was available - which she thus could only have done INTENTIONALLY. Your obfuscation, lying and stupidity is of Olympic proportions. But we can all be satisfied that you and she have lost the argument where it counts; before the Court and she has lost the respect of the sport as an adjudicated cheat - which is what an intentional doper is.
None of that addresses anything in my post. As you raised no dispute, I will presume you are in tacit agreement.
The banned drug found in her urine sample had to be ingested. She acknowledged that when she argued accidental contamination by eating a burrito. The likelihood of such contamination was determined by CAS as a "cascading series of improbabilities". Her story didn't cut it. Since her defence was rejected on the balance of probabilities that meant she had to have deliberately ingested the drug - no other explanation was available - which she thus could only have done INTENTIONALLY. Your obfuscation, lying and stupidity is of Olympic proportions. But we can all be satisfied that you and she have lost the argument where it counts; before the Court and she has lost the respect of the sport as an adjudicated cheat - which is what an intentional doper is.
... and before you presume I agree with this mess, much of this has already been corrected or debunked.
No one doubts it was ingested. Ingesting small amounts is an argument against intent, as it is not widely believed ingesting small amounts of steroids will help performance for a distance runner.
The presupposition of a cascade of the composite probabilities comes from the WA/AIU, and is itself problematic in some of its assumptions, as I detailed earlier. And in any case, it is at best indirectly connected to the likelihood that she intentionally doped with an exogenous nandrolone precursor purchased on Amazon.
Your jumped to conclusion of intent from the failure to establish non-intent on the "balance of probabilities" is a "false choice fallacy". The CAS didn't conclude intent, but presumed it, and then deemed it, resulting in a determination of 4-years for ineligibility.
Many innocent athletes will also lose the argument when it counts, and some of the few lucky ones who won, still lost 5-figures in defending against the allegation, and 1+ years of suspension, and related income, prizes, and sponsorship.
I asked you this before & I don't think you directly answered: Are you a relative of Houlihan? Close friend? Old boyfriend? Her coach? Prior coach? Old classmate? Part of her legal team?, etc?
I've never seen anyone so obsessed with this case to the point to where you seem to be taking it personal. You're obviously using this platform to vent your frustrations with the CAS & the process. But it's gone beyond that & to the point where you're showing OCD behavior.
I'm going to bet you fall into one of the above categories. There's just no way a regular fan of the sport would be this obsessed with Houlihan's case if there wasn't some kind of personal or professional involvement with her 😉